>>For the first time in my 28 years of life on this earth I finally decide to read the Bible from beginning to end

>Considered the word of God
>2) The Bible was not "written by God"

Pretty arrogant to assume you know the thought process of a god. Then again you're probably actually 16 years old, so maybe you'll understand it when you turn 19 like everybody else.

Fuck you, you punk bitch. Also I'm being sarcastic lol

So if it's not written by God why is it holy?

because it's inspired by the holy spirit you crocodile

Why does the Holy Spirit change its mind so often? There are obviously very different tones in the Bible.

He tolerates much crazier shit in current error

>LOL incest, rape and murder are immoral
>BuT GoD MoVeS In MyStErIoUs WaYs

lmaoing at your stupidity, dipshit.

Give a single example.

era*

>I am laughing at your stupidity!
You even type like a 16 year old atheist. What next, are you going to call me ignorant?

Ummmm, sweaty... God abandoned the earth a long time ago.

2 Samuel 8:4- And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

1 Chronicles 18:4- And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

The entire Bible is not just one book but a collection of over 60 books. Most of them written by different authors and during different time periods, some of them hundreds of years apart. That alone severely undermines the authenticity of the Bible. But the main problem is that if it's inspired by a single entity, shouldn't it be the same even though it's written by different authors?

It's all to demonstrate how far the jews strayed from God.

The only possible reason to ever read the Bible is to get the ultimate primary source on the sickness and depravity of the Jew mind.
But it's 2019 and you should know that already.

so obviously a copyist error. i couldnt even tell the difference at first

you just listed a bunch of degenerate things that humans did. not an argument against God

Its so funny like of course god doesnt exist. Get a brain morons.

>Pretty arrogant to assume you know the thought process of a god
But don't you do the same thing by declaring God good or just?

So now that you admit that there are copyist errors in the Bible, how do you know that the Bible isn't totally filled with such errors which we haven't discovered since they don't have parallel verses like the example I posted?

This is a stupid argument against OP. Those actions aren't approved by God. For example, Lot's descendants become subservient to the descendants of Abraham because of the incest.

>tfw lost my opportunity to study my own religion with people who actually know their shit

You have two main misconceptions about the Bible from this argument: 1) you believe that the Bible should be a unified text, 2) you believe that the Bible is a text that can be "disproven"/"proven", like a historical account. It is certainly not unified: as you said it is wildly inconsistent between its texts, it was written over a long time period. But this in no way undermines the Bible's "authenticity" because the question of the Bible's "authenticity" is not a viable means of looking at the texts. It is a library of biography, narrative, poetry, philosophy and history of a certain people, with a common set of ideas about a singular God. Only history can be actively disproven, but even if certain historical accounts from the Bible were proven untrue, that would not make the texts and how they view God any less valid as scripture.

The type of inconsistency you've shown here is a historical/typographical inconsistency. There are other more interesting internal inconsistencies to draw on, that show the interplay between Biblical texts. Ultimately Christianity is founded upon revising the Old Testament and Jesus often spoke in paradox, so it is a religion that I believe is based on inconsistency.

My answer is we don't but every time we find older and older remnants of early bible books, like the dead sea scrolls, scholars are always amazed at how similar the source is to the standard translations of the bible and other early fragments of biblical texts.

What a shame it is that you cannot see beyond the duality of mortals. You see black and white, where all is gray. You see nightmares and pleasant dreams, but there are just dreams. I can liberate you and everyone from this uncertainty you speak of, not without war, not without suffering, yet no great change is made without such phenomenon. Now I must ask you an important question, do you know of CHIM?

nope

>humans with free will do bad things in the bible
>he blames God anyways
???

You have much to learn and little time to learn it
But don’t sacrifice the knowledge for this books opium.

Attached: F8394B77-42AA-420D-89D2-C1EBCE146D32.png (210x442, 142K)

>non-fundamentalist who has contempt for fundamentalists thinks the bible has to be read like a fundamentalist
Whatever you think the Bible is, its not. Just read it.

>But don’t sacrifice the knowledge for this books opium.
learn to write retard

Everyone in this thread should read your post. They wont.

old testmant is jew shit
new testmant is christ shit

you started but didn't even know that
so start over

>bad people exist
>bad people are in the bible
atheists: LOL YOU READ THIS????

This is a winning post.

>[L]earn to write, retard
Yeah, thanks. I noticed it too.

One of the bad people are Yhwh, though.
That’s what we don’t like

Attached: 4CECD2A5-ABB9-43E1-A32F-6B750A8357C0.jpg (722x662, 159K)

>bad people exist
>bad people are in the bible and you have to play along and believe everything on it was writed with the help of some magic entity therefore nothing in the bible can be wrong or bad is always some kind of literary resource
atheists: LOL YOU READ THIS????

>The Bible is not written by God
Blasphemy

we killed him

Attached: AFEB5526-3F40-41BF-AA47-1A2237C1F87F.jpg (524x400, 48K)

Recent Christian convert here; I am confused now as to how I should view the bible. What do I do with the information therein? Do you think it's accurate as to the nature of god? The new testament to me seemed more unified and made more sense, and was more believable, especially when historically a Jesus did exist, and the roman's went batshit insane when his tomb was found empty and jews were converting enmasse amongst sightings of him post death.

Why not? Why should we give God all this credit? What proof is there that he isn't just an arbitrary being who happens to apprehend a universe?

Attached: c9d.png (657x527, 68K)

Don't listen to this apostate, about the Bible it will lead you back to atheism if you accept it as a semi true text. It will leed to looking at it as you see any other book.
Pick up the orthodox study Bible, it has great commentary, see some YouTube commentary if you are still not sure. But of you accept the Bible as true you will see it's actually quite holistic text that does not have inconsistentsy in it form Christian perspective.

>it's immoral to offer up your own daughters to stop them from raping ANGELS

yikes

Not only is it immoral, its retarded. What if they say no? Oh wait, they did. Lot was a retard and a piece of shit.

worth a shot, he was outnumbered like 50 to one what else is he going to do

>angels are defenseless against mortal humans and will happily let themselves be fucked up the ass when threatened by them

A: he doesn't know how powerful the angels are, did he even know they were angels actually and not just guests, can't remember.

B: It's a bad look to not try and do anything to stop them from raping the angels, even if the angels can easily deal with the problem

maybe the angels wanted it. ever consider that?

nah because they show they don't by blinding the rapists like 2 verses later

Lot and Noah are considered good and righteous by God though..

johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/10/why-is-lot-called-righteous-if-he.html

I don't see what this adds to my comment

read this and learn what an incredible waste of time reading the Bible will be, and what an incredible waste of time it is listening to people claiming to have read it or understand it

Attached: mjehr.jpg (328x499, 40K)

>how do you know that the Bible isn't totally filled with such errors which we haven't discovered since they don't have parallel verses like the example I posted?
By textual criticism. Copy errors are well understood, and have only just been reduced as problem for transferring books through the ages.
There are hundreds of manuscripts for the Bible in various forms and languages from various parts of the world, and various times, within a span of thousands of years. That means that scholars can reliably look at a very early manuscript of the New Testament written in the pre-Constantine period, and then compare it with a manuscript copied in a Byzantine scriptorium from 800+ years later, and see the natural branches of various streams of text copying. Then, the scholar can look at a manuscript produced in a different region, time, and translated into another language, then compare and contrast.
This kind of measurement and scholarship allows a reliable metric to be extrapolated to hundreds, even thousands of years from before the extant manuscript was copied.
99% of scribal errors are untranslatable, equivalent to spelling or grammatical errors. There's a few that aren't, but the Bible (and a lot of works of antiquity) tend towards expansion, rather than contraction. Of the substantial sections (which vary between a sentence in length, or a about half a page), nothing can be said to greatly affect content. The reason the transmission tends towards expansion is because scribes tended to be conservative, and often times they'd rather save a section rather than lose it, when in doubt.
For example, more expensive manuscripts, after more condensed letters were used in books, had more space. So people would jot text notes in the margins. But a scribe might screw up, and put the excess in the margins. So a later scribe would be cautious about that, and just put it all in to be safe. This, and other major scribal errors, were pretty rare, and there's only one example that I'm aware of where this theory is proposed, that adds a single clause to a single verse. The rate of translatable discrepancies is marginal.
In terms of that first post, about the numbers discrepancy, I think you need to realize that numbers are a very tricky thing for scholars in dead languages that are really ancient.

This is how scholarship is done for all kinds of major ancient works, and yet how often do you see people call their authenticity into question? And they don't have nearly the amount of textual evidence as the Bible.

deal with it libcuck

Based.
Reminder to fundies: biblical literalism is
(1) the most simple and low IQ reading of the bible—as low IQ as a secular reading
(2) fundamentalism is contrary to reality

Why did God leave such a convoluted message to his 80 IQ followers?

"Bad thing happen" has to be the most brainlet criticism of anything related to religion.

> Submits his believes to brain dead atheists
Why would you do that

YHWH is fucking awesome. How can you like Nietzsche but not like YHWH? He's the Will to Power incarnate

>Not appreciating that you have access to a clear legible translation of stories that have been told and retold for literal millenia.

You atheists are so trapped in the present and our own modern socialisation. Every Christian reads the Bible regularly. They know what's in it.

The Old Testament is an incredible window into the past and a yardstick mirror to our present. God is not a Human being. He doesn't think or exist to play by our rules or sensibilities. Why would an immortal asexual being care too much about incest.

He hasn't. Jesus had the final word and cleared it up. His message is concise and clear.

So your answer is that Biblical scholars just wrote down everything they found written in the scribes, regardless of whether it fit in with other parts of the bible, regardless of whether it was true or not and then they just hoped some part of the original would be among all they have written. So if I'm reading a verse in the Bible, there will always be a chance of it being something the scribe added on his own whim? That's like reading an instruction manual with 1 correct thing among 100s of false ones, and just hoping we read the correct one, only in the case of the Bible you would go to hell if you chose wrong.

based

it show that you are wrong

It's impossible to understand the bible if you read it as an unsaved person because you dont have the Holy Spirit residing in you to teach you the true meaning behind scritures. That's why so many atheists and other non believers ridicule the book because it doesn't make sense to them.
1 Corinthians 2:14 kjv
>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It's also hard to start with the old testament, it only gets harder from there on. Genesis and Exodus are easier books to go through, and it gets pretty slow starting from Leviticus to Chronicles. A better would be to start in the book of John, and if you like it, finish the New Testament and then go through the Old Testament. You can also read poetic books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiates out of sequence if you'd like. Make sure to grab King James Version though, most of the modern versions including catholic ones like douay rheims are heavily doctered and contaminated. You should also stay clear out of any study bibles because they are usually written my men with a political agenda. You should get saved first and let the Holy Spirit teach you.
John 14:26 kjv
>But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

youtube.com/watch?v=WDEBz25lGdY&t=1s

Attached: kjv vs modern versions.jpg (1080x1087, 153K)

Read Swedenborg. The stories always have a deeper spiritual meaning

>Already the righteous Lot has offered up his daughters to the men of Sodom to gangrape in an attempt to keep them from raping God's angels.
>the righteous Lot

You already started with the wrong approach to this book, who said Lot was righteous? What the passage it's trying to show it's that Lot was a human being, with virtues and sins. In the specific passage you're referring to, Genesis 19:8, Lot believes that he's doing a good deed (in fact, respecting and protecting your guests was important in the ancient world), but it never states that it was good in the eyes of God. In fact, the angels save both Lot and his daughters precisely for this.
Sodom it's an archetypal city in the Bible, you will find this story repeated after, like in Judges 19-21.

>Later after the destruction of the city and the death of Lot's wife for looking back on the city,

It's not just a matter of disobeying God; it implies that she's also choosing Sodom over the former.

>Lots daughters get him drunk and fuck him to conceive children because they think no other men exist now

Again, those are human beings. They fail and make mistakes. It's showing this to learn from their example, to know not only about the good deed of the past, but also about the sins.

>Also there's that bit where Noah curses the son of his son to be a slave because he saw him naked in his tent

Remember how Adam and Eve were both ashamed of their nakedness when they ate the fruit of knowledge? It's about shame and the exposure of your own weakness for everyone to see. This thing about nakedness it's a recurring theme in the Genesis; Noah was in the same situation. Three of his children saw him naked, not only one, and the one he cursed was the one that disrespected him.
I came to believe this passage it's about respecting your father even when he's on his lowest point (i mean, Noah was drunk after all). And it's not just about your father in a literal sense, it's also in a metaphorical sense, like how you should respect your culture and tradition even after it has fall like it has done nowadays.

ITT - christian apologists go REEEEEEEEEE!

Maybe protect the angels (which God should really be protecting anyway) AND his fucking family, maybe?

Attached: bb5.gif (400x400, 1.64M)

Jordan Peterson's Biblical Lecture series is unironicaly based
Adam and Eve dramatizes the emergence of self-conscioussness and Cain and Able represent the two archetypal response patterns human beings act out in the face of it.

>the Bible is totally infallible without any parts being derived from oral history, ancient law, and general political manipulation

Don’t be an absolute retard

Attached: C7B6E53E-B6FE-43E7-AA37-56FB00B2D94F.png (581x767, 330K)

this is definitely the work of a functioning adult and not a 15 year old virgin

this is definitivelily opus

You are, simply put, just looking for (You)s. :3

I want you all to keep in mind, there is a HUGE possibility she is just trolling at this point. She has suggested people should read books from the bible before

>political correctness is my religion
>political correctness is greater than G*d

>she

>And God is A-Okay with this kind of behavior!
the whole point of the old testament was that the people of it were basically terrible and incapable of fulfilling their end of the deal, which is why we need Christ.

sure that's the point if you interpret it in a way the authors never would have conceived of